From The Tweets to Street: The Production of
#GejayanMemanggil Movement Discourses and Frames
Universitas Sumatera Utara
Jalan Dr T Mansur No 9 Padang Bulan, Medan Tuntungan, Kota Medan, Sumatera Utara, 20155, Indonesia [email protected]
On September 23, 2019, the people of Yogyakarta gathered to respond to the call for protest echoed by People Movement Alliance (Aliansi Rakyat Bergerak) on social media through the hashtag #GejayanMemanggil (Gejayan Calling). At least 5000 people had joined in the protest and successfully circulated the demands to the public through social media, making the hashtag the largest social protest in Yogyakarta after the reformation era. Instead of explaining the importance of the role of social media on social movements, this article focuses on how movement discourse is shaped, collective identities and ideological enemies are constructed, demand is invoked, and calls to action are articulated. The qualitative method with social movement framing analysis was employed to examine the meaning of the discourse and framing of the people in the protest movement. The data in this article were retrieved from interviews with the protesters, online observation and desk research.
The results indicate that the hashtag produced a set of frames, covering two main orders of discourse – the marginalization of civilians from the decision-making process and the distribution of material focusing merely on some elites. The author contends that the hashtag acts as an inclusive, flexible and leaderless movement.
Keywords: Framing; #Gejayanmemanggil; Social Media; Social Movement.
Submitted : 01-12-2021 Accepted : 17-12-2021 Published : 30-12-2021
On September 22, 2019, the hashtag
#GejayanMemanggil became a trending topic on Twitter, which was also issued by an Instagram account @gejayamemanggil.
Tweets related to which were buzzing with discussions regarding several regulations that were considered unsettling (Fuadi, 2020). The dissemination of the hashtag on both social media is part of the mass mobilization strategy that was carried out by ARB the next day at Gejayan Street, Yogyakarta. On September 23, 2019, thousands of mass action consisting of university students from various universities, the Foundation of the Indonesian Legal Aid Institute and other elements of society in Yogyakarta, gathered
to answer the public concern that was widely discussed on Twitter and Instagram.
For the #GejayanMemanggil case, social media has become an extraordinary tool in influencing the public to be more involved in the problems of the country (Fuadi, 2020, p. 548). Indonesians, particularly the younger generation, are enthusiastic social media users. It is especially visible in Jakarta and other major cities. Indeed, on Twitter, Jakarta is the most active city in the world when compared to other major cities (Jurriëns & Tapsell, 2017).
The #GejayanMemanggil protest is similar to the demonstration in Gejayan 23 years ago to overthrow the New Order regime. At that time, Moses Gatutkaca, a student of Sanata Dharma University, died
Dari Cuitan Ke Jalanan: Produksi Diskursus dan Pembingkaian Gerakan #GejayanMemanggil
Pada tanggal 23 September 2019, ribuan masyarakat Yogyakarta berkumpul menjawab panggilan keresahan yang digaungkan oleh aktivis Aliansi Rakyat Bergerak (ARB) di media sosial melalui tagar (#) “Gejayan Memanggil”. Setidaknya 5000 orang telah bergabung dalam aliansi dan telah berhasil menyebarkan tuntutan aksi kepada masyarakat melalui media sosial, membuat Gejayan Memanggil menjadi aksi demonstrasi terbesar di Yogyakarta setelah era reformasi. Alih-alih membahas pentingnya peran media sosial pada gerakan sosial, artikel ini berfokus pada bagaimana gerakan dibingkai, wacana serta identitas kolektif dibentuk dan bagaimana musuh ideologis gerakan dikonstruksi sehingga dapat menarik simpati para pendukung. Metode kualitatif dengan pendekatan analisis framing gerakan sosial digunakan untuk mengkaji bagaimana aktor-aktor gerakan Gejayan Memanggil memproduksi makna melalui wacana dan bingkai. Pengumpulan data melalui serangkaian observasi, wawancara dan studi dokumen. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Gejayan Memanggil menghasilkan serangkaian pembingkaian yang berkaitan dengan 2 diskursus utama; marginalisasi masyarakat sipil dari proses pengambilan keputusan dan distribusi materi yang hanya terkonsentrasi pada beberapa kelompok (elite). Penulis berpendapat bahwa Gejayan Memanggil sebagai gerakan yang inklusif, cair, dan menerapkan prinsip kepemimpinan leaderless movement (tidak ada figur yang dominan).
Keywords: Pembingkaian, Gejayan Memanggil; Media Sosial; Gerakan Sosial.
as a victim (Savirani, 2019). Owing to having the same root of the struggle, Gejayan was chosen by ARB as the stage for contestation and action against a series of government policies that were considered to weaken the spirit of reform (Firdausi, 2019). The disappointment was voiced through the sentences #ReformasiDikorupsi (Reform is Corrupted) and #MosiTidakPercaya
“Motion of No Confidence”. The protestors identifying themselves as the people’s Movement Alliance decided to make a follow-up action from the hashtag which was held on September 30, 2019. In this context, the actions on September 23 and 30, 2019, become the focus of this paper.
Seeing this phenomenon, it is undeniable that social media potentially provide new opportunities for citizens and subordinate groups in society to bypass state and market controls and the mainstream media to construct alternative collective identities (Cammaerts, 2015). According to Castells (2010), the acceleration of information technology, especially on social media, has provided an extensive tool for the public to express their views, both in the form of new social movements and as a controller of the behavior of stakeholders or politicians. Furthermore, Cammaerts (2015) agrees that social media can provide opportunities for ‘lagging’ or
‘disadvantaged’ groups in society to self- represent themselves.
In the context of social movements, social media can be a tool to support activities as well as a weapon that weakens and kills the struggle. Several researchers recognize social media as a neutral tool that
aids activists or accelerates the movement (Aouragh, M., & Alexander, 2011; Eltantawy, N., & Wiest, 2011). Communication studies can be placed as a pivotal component in various mobilizations and struggles throughout history (Cammaerts, 2015;
Lim, 2018; Kozinets, 2010). However, in order not to be trapped in the view of
‘techno-utopianism’ and ‘social media centralism’, the study related to the multidimensionality of the media, which is associated with the narrative and framing of certain movements may serve as significant knowledge for further research.
The movement triggered by ARB is inseparable from the strong narrative framed by the movement. Apart from getting widespread attention on social media, Kompas TV (2019), an Indonesian television broadcast, even made a special report program by a reporter Aiman Witjaksono entitled “Kekuatan Mantra Gejayan Memanggil” the Mantra Power of Gejayan Calling. The diction ‘mantra’
illustrated in the program’s title is associated with the discourse brought up during the action, persuading many people to participate. Moreover, the discourse and framing of the hashtag spread organically on social media and managed to steal the attention of social media users, specifically in Twitter (Fahmi, 2019a). Therefore, the research about the production of the hashtag discourses and framing is vital to be discovered.
This paper focused on two questions:
1) How was the context in which the hashtag is situated? 2) How the movement discourses and framing are produced to
build a collective identity and mobilize for direct action? To answer those, this paper explores the social movements through an in-depth investigation of the production of discourses and framing by using the Core Framing Task conceptual framework offered by Snow et al (2018). It is based on framing perspectives on particular social movements.
This article uses the Framing theory, core framing tasks of Snow’s conceptual architecture (Snow et al., 2018). The concept of “frame” in social movements takes inspiration from the work of Goffman (1974). It was not until the extended time of 1986 that Snow, Rochford, Worden, and Benford presented outlining an investigation into social development study, which looks at why individuals connect with social developments (Chen
& Dobratz, 2015). The concept of ‘framing’
in social movements takes inspiration from the work of Goffman. According to Goffman, framing is an interpretive framework that allows people to locate, understand, identify and name events that occur in their lives and the world as a whole (Sukmana, 2016) . Starting from Goffman’s ideas, Snow and Benford offer the concept of framing – the process of creating frames – to explain social movements or collective action. They argue that framing theory serves to explain the importance of ideations in a social movement’s effort to communicate its goal and to build collective identities (Cammaerts, 2018).
In social movements, framing is
created to understand events by simplifying and extracting what is happening in the world out there. This simplification aims to mobilize admirers and followers, gains support from the audience, and demobilizes opponents (Cammaerts, 2018)
This study employs a qualitative procedure using text analysis methods (Eriyanto, 2012). The content analysis focused on discourses and framing on social media posted by @gejayanmemanggil o cial Twi er and Instagram accounts In addition, a study report created by the research division of ARB was also analyzed.
A range of documents was analyzed discursively to identify the framing of the hashtag movement. The discourse and framing analysis also fed into the design of the in-depth interview and online observation. Therefore, in conducting this study, the authors also applied digital ethnographic methods (Pink, 2017). The object of this research is the action of the hashtag movement of the first part (September 23, 2019) and the second part (September 30, 2019).
D a t a c o l l e c t i o n t e c h n i q u e s im pl eme nte d were p ar ti ci p ato ry observation, in-depth interviews and desk research. The participatory observation was carried out by observing and participating as followers on the official Twitter and Instagram accounts @gejayanmemanggil and joining as a member of a chat group named “Road to Gejayan” in WhatsApp, which was later replaced with “Panitia Jalan Sehat Healthy alk Commi ee as
its name since intruders were considered joined in the chat group. Then, in-depth interviews with 8 ARB activists who played a key role in the rst and second protests were also conducted. The selection of the informants was based on the signi cance of their role and contribution, starting from the initiator or core consolidator and the coordinator of each division as follows, the Agitation and Propaganda Division, the Events Division, the Public Relations and Visual Division, and the Research Division. Last, the desk research was carried out by collecting ARB output products starting from the results of studies, posters, pictures, and photos uploaded through the Instagram and Twi er accounts gejayanmemanggil and the bit.ly/RakyatBergerak link.
This study implements series of technical data analysis processes according to John W. Creswell (2018) – collecting data obtained or wri en in interview transcripts coding and selecting themes as the results of the ndings and interpreting the data on the ndings
The discussion in this study is divided into two parts. First, the context in which the hashtag movement is situated and how the movement emerges is fruitful to underlie the explanation regarding the framing of the narrative and the formation of the collective identity of the movement.
In the second part, the authors highlight the discourses delivered along with the stages of framing carried out by the hashtag movement.
The discourse process of the
#GejayanMemanggil movement is closely related to the context in which the movement is situated. The emergence of the hashtag and other mass mobilization actions in Indonesia from September to October 2019 coincided with the inauguration of the elected President Joko Widodo and Vice President Ma’ruf Amin for the period 2019 to 2024. The year 2019 is considered the most polarizing election in society (Triwibowo, 2019). This presidential election split the community into two supporters - cebong (tadpole) and kampret (bat). The former refers to Jokowi’s fanatical supporters, while the latter is the fanatical supporters of another president nomination in that year, Prabowo. The inauguration of the president, which at that time was to be held within a month, made any political activity carried out during that period considered as an attempt by the kampret party to thwart the inauguration. Prolonged polarization after the presidential election has made the hashtag accused of being a movement driven by Prabowo’s supporters. This allegation was answered by ARB, which is discussed later.
The second context is that the members of the national parliament 2014-2019 were about to end their tenure. Before their term of office ended, they hastily passed a series of bills, all of which were conservative, including weakening the role of the country’s most respected institution, Komisi Pemberatan Korupsi (shortened as KPK, the Corruption Eradication Commission).
Other controversial bills include the drafts on the Eradication of Sexual Violence, the Criminal Code, and the Natural Resources, Minerals and Coal. Not only are the drafts issued conservative, but the legislative process for ratification also lacks public participation (Wisanggeni, 2019). The lack is then constructed as a framing narrative.
In September and October 2019, various student demonstrations spread throughout Indonesia criticized several policies considered to weaken the spirit of reform. Initially, the protest was held in Jakarta, just a week before the protest in Yogyakarta, using hashtags
#ReformasiDikorupsi (reform is corrupted),
#MahasiswaBergerak (university students are moving), and #SemuaBisaKena (all can get impacts). (Fahmi, 2019a). Meanwhile, in Yogyakarta, the protest was entitled
#GejayanMemanggil, which was taken from the name of the street where the protest was located.
ARB was initiated by a small group of activists that started from cultural fellows. Based on the authors’ observation, this non-formal group consisted of students majoring in Social Humanities at Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM). The first meeting prior to establishing ARB was held exactly three days before the first part of the #GeyajanMemanggil protest. The first meeting discussed political events that were happening by mapping related issues to be articulated by the movement.
The initiation of the hashtag was firstly initiated by UGM students who came
from various faculties, predominantly the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Faculty of Cultural Sciences, Faculty of Law, and others.
The open consolidation which was held on September 21, 2019, was the beginning of the formation of ARB. The consolidation was attended by various university students, who came individually, represented their institutions and student movements. Apart from them, several civil society activists were also seen attending the consolidation. Broadly speaking, there are several discussion results. In the consolidation, they agreed on seven demands that needed to be fought for;
forming ARB; spreading the hashtag
#GejayanMemanggil protest on September 23, 2019, at Gejayan Street with the headline
‘Motion of No Confidence’; arranging divisions of work teams; and fixing action preparations. The demands of ARB through the hashtag protest were as follows: (1) To urge the postponement of a re-discussion on the problematic articles in the draft of the National Criminal Code (2) To urge the Government and House of Representatives to revise the ratified KPK Law and to reject all forms to weaken the attempts of eradicating corruption in Indonesia (3) To demand the Government to investigate and prosecute the elites who are responsible for environmental damage in several areas of Indonesia (4) To reject the problematic articles in the Bill on Manpower having no advantages to laborers (5) To reject the problematic articles in the Bill on Land, which were considered as a form of betrayal of the agrarian reform (6) To urge the ratification of the Bill on the Elimination of Sexual Violence (7) To encourage the
democratization process in Indonesia and to arrest activists in various sectors (Aliansi Rakyat Bergerak, 2019).
Furthermore, ARB held the second part of the #GejayanMemanggil movement as a follow-up action, on September 30, 2019. In addition to re-emphasizing the various demands that have not been fulfilled, this second action emphasizes the point of stopping the repression of the apparatus and the criminalization of the people’s movement. The reason is that the wave of demonstrations that peaked on September 23 to 24, 2019, both in the capital and several other areas, were responded to by the authorities with violence until the victim died or was injured and many activists were arrested. The demands also include new issues such as the Bill on Cyber Security and Resilience. These additions generally do not change the construction of the demands and objectives of the movement (Aliansi Rakyat Bergerak, 2019).
The demands on both parts of the hashtag protests presented by ARB consist of different issues. The activists realize that these multiple demands are difficult for the public to understand, however, based on solidarity and inclusiveness, all issues related to their involvement are included. Gendis Syari, the research division coordinator who is in charge of making an inventory of issues revealed as follows:
“The first question that arises is that before we take any action, we must first make sure that our internals has the same view. The trick is how we compile all these issues together so that they become an intersection.”
(Gendis Syari, Personal Interview, June 20, 2021.)
Framing processes occur during conversations, meetings, and written communications among the movement leaders and members within cultural and structural contexts called discursive fields (Snow et al., 2018). Based on the aforementioned demands, the movement has two core discourses – the marginalization of civil society from the decision-making process and the unfair material redistribution focusing on some political elites and oligarch only. These two discourses are then used as a common thread between issues, to facilitate the articulation of the movement, considering there are many issues to be fought for.
These two discourses are interrelated due to the exclusion of civil society from the policy-making process resulting in policy products that do not accommodate the public interest. Like most discourses, the marginalization of civil society and material redistribution has a long historical legacy.
Discursive histories and their polysemous nature are the reasons why they become discourses and not framing (Cammaerts, 2018). The discursive articulation plays an important role in the construction of the identity of objects as individuals or collectives. Aliansi Rakyat Bergerak is a group of activists consisting of individuals and groups of students and the public who agreed to merge themselves into a new collective. Although this alliance was driven by students, the participants of the action agreed to choose to identify themselves as a people’s movement (Cammaerts, Bart
&Carpentier, 2007)
In the discourse of material redistribution and the marginalization of civil rights, the hashtag movement has developed a set of core framing tasks that aims to identify problems (diagnostic frames), articulate solutions (prognostic frames); and call to action (motivational frames). Based on the observation of the official account @gejayanmemanggil on social media and desk research from the complete study of both protests, the authors summarize the process and objectives of framing the movement based on Table 1.
Table 1: The Narrative Framing Process of #GejayanMemanggil movement 1-2
Framing
Process Narrative Diagnostic
frames Problem statement
Source of trouble (common ideological enemy)
- Injustice
- Criminalization - Democracy in the vortex of oligarchy
- Authoritarian regime
- Oligarchy (unfair system)
Prognostic frames
Solution articulation
Claiming alternative democracy narratives in the public space
Motivational frames
Call for action
Collective Identity
Motivator
- No-Confidence Motion!”Mosi Tidak Percaya”
- Leave the class empty! “Kosongkan Kelas-kelas”
- Gejayan Memanggil: Anti Senayan Movement
“Gerakan Jalanan Anti Senayan”
No figure dominant (Leaderless
Movement)
Source: obtained from primary data (2021) Diagnostic framing has a role to identify problems and their causes.
Exposing a problem is the first step in the narrative framing process of the movement (Cammaerts, 2018). Through this process, individuals translate their own grievances into a common grievance, common goals, and a common identity that bring people together and generate social change (Liu, 2015, p. 569). A successful frame usually simply represents complex issues. One of the most frequently used diagnostic framing models is the ‘injustice frame’. An important step in this frame is identifying the ‘victims’ of injustice and echoing the injustice. In this context, the
#GejayanMemanggil movement showcases that there is an injustice occurring in various government decisions.
The narrative framing of injustice places communities as a victim of abuse of power, legal uncertainty and poverty that occurs in vulnerable groups. To illustrate, in the Indonesian context, it can be seen amid Papuans. ARB issues this injustice in
the full review of both #GejayanMemanggil protests as follow:
“Humanitarian trials related to Papua are always confronted with many things: first, that history leaves a feeling of ‘injustice’ for those who see Penentuan Pendapat Rakyat (shortened as PEPERA, Act of Free Choice) as a fraudulent, intimidating and minimally participatory act....” (Aliansi Rakyat Bergerak, 2019).
They argued that long history proves that the Papuans are not given the right to participate in developing their natural resources. On the other hand, the Indonesian government has always used a violent approach to quell the turmoil of resistance. The government’s injustice in handling the Papua issue can be observed in a variety of conflicts that frequently collide with the rights of the citizens with the military. Repeated cases of human rights violations by military forces are caused by impunity and the state’s failure to prosecute perpetrators of human rights violations in Papua (Amnesty international, 2018). The framing of ‘injustice’ is also intended to accommodate the interests of sexual harassment victims. Related to the Bill on Eradication of Sexual Violence, ARB echoed the blurred -policymaking, which had not been ratified, through this post in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1 Instagram Posters About Rape Victims
Source O cial Instagram Account of ge- jayanmemanggil, 2019
To provide a simple explanation to the public about the urgency of the passage in the Bill on the Eradication of Sexual Violence, ARB produces content containing statistics on the number of rape victims with associative narratives. Anyone who reads it will imagine how dangerous it is if this continues. Besides adding insights to the reader regarding the number of victims, this narrative also has the potential to arouse the awareness of readers or the hashtag followers from certain segments.
The next framing is the ‘criminalization’
carried out by the police against pro- democracy activists, farmers and especially the participants of mass demonstrations who were caught by officers in other areas.
This criminalization framing also builds a narrative that the ideological enemy blamed in the movement is the ‘authoritarian regime’ that always uses violence to solve problems. The framing of ‘criminalization’
is specifically conveyed in the full review of both parts of the #GejayanMemanggil protest.
“... public disappointment has accumulated due to a series of other events such as forest fires in several areas in Indonesia, the repression of the state apparatus against civil movements, and the criminalization of civil society activists.”
(Aliansi Rakyat Bergerak, 2019).
The narrative of the common ideological enemy of the ‘authoritarian regime’ is also specified when discussing horizontal conflicts in various regions of Indonesia, in Papua, for instance. The frequent narratives about the criminalization
of human rights issues occurring in Papua happen due to simultaneous local conflicts between the apparatus and civilians in that province. Starting from the riots that occurred in the Papuan student dormitory in Surabaya, the hoax that spread about the death of Papuan students, the riots continued in Jayapura and Wamena (Belarminus, 2019)
This ‘criminalization’ framing was then also uploaded in several posts on the official Instagram account @ gejayanmemanggil. One of which was depicted the demand to the police to stop all criminalizing acts against civil society as seen in Figure 2.
Figure 2 Instagram posters to stop all criminalizing acts against civil society
Source O cial Instagram Account of ge- jayanmemanggil, 2019
#GejayanMemanggil also frames the narrative Demokrasi dalam Pusaran Oligarki (Democracy in an Oligarchy Whirlpool).
This main narrative framing is categorized as the diagnostic frame since it represents almost all the issues that the movement claims. As Prentoulis & Thomassen (2013) argue that democracy as it currently exists, is increasingly regarded as a flawed system, ruled by an unrepresentative and
‘distant’ elite having ‘little in common with
the ordinary people they are supposed to represent and not acting ‘in line with the citizens’ beliefs. Meanwhile, Winters (2013) believes that oligarchs have one fundamental trait, which is to maintain power. Defense of power is divided into two types, namely defense of wealth and defense of income. According to the ARB activists, the problem of the narrative ‘Democracy in an Oligarchy Whirlpool’ comes from the patterns of state organization, which is centered on only a few people in the oligarchy. This is in line with what is contained in the contents of the report of the action of #Gejayan Memanggil protest:
“Today the oligarchs hijack democracy.
One of them is by controlling the public policy-making process. They even enter and control democratic institutions such as political parties and the media.” (Aliansi Rakyat Bergerak, 2019).
The framing narrative of ‘Democracy in an Oligarchy Whirlpool’ is always associated with a pattern of state organization that only focuses on some elite groups. ARB emphasizes that the democracy tarnished by oligarch interests eliminates the public participation to join the decision-making and determine the direction of public policy.
After the problem is determined, the next part of diagnostic framing is to identify the source of the problem or designate the responsible or blamed individuals (Cammaerts, 2018). Based on the authors’ observations, the diction oligarch is mentioned 34 times in the 49-pages of ARB’s study report. The
position of ARB in opposing the practice of oligarchy is also clearly stated in the interview session with the activists. Nadia Noer, the Coordinator of the Agitation and Propaganda Division, said that they were fighting against ‘oligarchy’ including the system that allowed it to exist and the elites who carry out the practice (Nadia Noer, Personal Interview June 05, 2021). In social movements, consensus about the core of the problem is not necessarily followed by the source of the problem. Controversy about perpetrators and causes to blame can occur not only between different social movements but also within the same movement. Regarding this common ideological enemy, several ARB activists admitted that they did not want to define explicitly the reasons for blaming. The common ideological enemy should be adjourned, depending on how each community interprets it. However, in the study of both parts of the hashtag, the authors can conclude that the source of the problem and the trigger for this social movement to emerge is ‘oligarchy’.
This high level of distrust and delegitimization of formal democratic institutions that work together and build this oligarchic network also has an impact on the way the hashtag movement to organize, even on the internal democratic process.
ARB applies a ‘bottom-up’ work system so that all movement decisions are taken by deliberation and always accommodate the interests of the movement. In the prognostic framework, the way the hashtag movement called for providing an alternative space for the public to participate in democracy
is elaborated.
After the problem is determined, the next task of framing is the Prognostic role, which is to offer possible solutions to the problem or plans to deal with the problems and implemented strategies (Cammaerts, 2018). In this case, the possibility of solutions and strategies depends on the results of the identification process and the source of the problem. The lack of clarity and agreement about the problem and its causes can lead to a lack of plans and strategies to mobilize the masses to move. Based on the authors’ observation, the ARB activists offer a solution ‘proposing demands for alternative democracy narratives in the public from the problems above.
According to the hashtag movement, real democracy is required since it reflects the true interests of the people rather than elites’ interests who appear to govern the broken democracy. In the study report of both protests, the problem is described based on the context of events and political dynamics in post-reform Indonesia, which is then linked to the history of the New Order government. The problem is narratively framed in that democracy does not bring public participation in the policy- making process.
“Unfortunately, the recent political conditions in Indonesia have emphasized the position of the state as a party that strengthens the oligarchic elite and weakens civil society. The relationship formed between civil society and the state upholds despotism, a form of government with one ruler who holds absolute power. It is not a common interest. We are made to get used
to the state-centric narrative that kills our real participation in the policy process.”
(Aliansi Rakyat Bergerak, 2019).
This prognostic framing narrative is used as the opening title to explain the overall solution proposed by this collective.
The framing of the solution related to the ARB’s proposed solution is even used as the opening page of the hashtag report as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3 The Report Cover of Aliansi Rakyat Bergerak “Claiming Alternative
Democracy Narratives In The Public Space”
Source: Aliansi Rakyat Bergerak, 2019
A study by Winters (2013) on contemporary politics in Indonesia portrays that there are no significant changes after the reform. According to him, only one change is observable that Indonesia is no longer ruled by a dictator. For ARB, reclaiming a demand for democracy through strengthening the participation of civil society in the life of the state in one of the studies is another option to take.
“This is based on the lack of vertical access for civil society to involve themselves in the policy-making process. Thus, civil society needs to carry out deeper
consolidation to formulate a structured civic engagement to strengthen its position in determining the direction of state policy.”
(Aliansi Rakyat Bergerak, 2019).
Next, to mobilize people, the motivational framing has the role of encouragement to provide reasons for the movement participation. In addition, the framing aims to make a conducive situation, including creating appropriate vocabulary and jargon used to motivate (Cammaerts, 2018). In this framing process, ARB integrates social media to disseminate and control the narratives produced by the movement. On the one hand, this framing process shows how the movement builds an offensive narrative, for example, through the ‘Motion of No Confidence’ narrative. On the other hand, it also shows the framing process as a defensive mechanism carried out by the movement, such as a rejection of being associated with electoral political interests, and the claim on a peaceful action and anti-characterization. In detail, ARB identifies three framing narratives in this motivational framing process, namely:
(1) Call for action covering the narratives Mosi Tidak Percaya “Motion of No-Confidence!” and Kosongkan Kelas- Kelas! “Leave the Class Empty!” (2) Collective identity covering the narratives Gejayan Memanggil or known as Gerakan Jalanan Anti Senayan “Gejayan Calling” or
“the Anti-Senayan Movement” Menolak Ditunggangi “Refuses to be Ridden” (3) Motivator having no figure dominant or leaderless Movement.
This motivational framing stage is a process that determines the success of
the frame, which is then articulated to the public. This stage itself contains a framing narrative, which aims directly at mass mobilization. In the following, the framing narratives above are elaborated.
The narrative “Motion of No- Confidence” is an action title used to compile all the demands of the movement.
This narrative is also to place ARB as a people’s movement against the House of Representatives and the political elite.
This movement seeks to unite various individuals who exist in one identity category, the community. The framing process of such a narrative is facilitated by social media through the publication of studies and statements of movement.
The narrative in the reported study is directed at attacking the target of distrust, which is the oligarchy controlling the democratic channel. Then, the contents like posters and hashtags also play a role in amplifying the narrative in the digital space. This call is specifically for university students who want to share the same idea with the narrative to the current regime and parliament that do not side with the people. They are asked to empty the class and join a multiparty demonstration on Gejayan Street. Two posters containing the narratives were also widely disseminated personally by Twitter users to make them a trending topic at the time (Fahmi, 2019a).
It has been broadly perceived that a solid collective identity is significant for a successful social movement (Lin, 2017).
Social movements distinguish self-interests from collective interests (Cammaerts, 2018). The efforts to identify an identity are
reflected in the naming of ARB. Its name has a goal to represent the aspirations of the people, not just university students. The community identity is used as an effort to embrace the widest possible participation and shows a representation of the people’s unrest who are dissatisfied with various policies emerged.
Through the narrative Gerakan Jalanan Anti Senayan, the student-led movement seeks to build an inclusive, informal and anti-parliamentary movement. The movement tends to monitor policies that are considered impartial to the community.
The narrative of the people’s movement is also formed through the choice of place. ARB does not select government symbols as the targets for action. Instead, they chose Gejayan Street, which is one of the economic and educational areas in Yogyakarta. The movement does not attack and occupy the symbol of the state as the other movement does. Instead, it brings the movement closer to the middle of society as an effort to involve civil society in democracy. The collective identity is also based on the principle of a movement that promotes peaceful non-violent protest. The selection of Gejayan Street as the location is also closely related to its historical aspect, which became the arena for demonstrations demanding reform 23 years ago.
Also, the narrative that explains the collective identity of the hashtag movement is when it refuses to be controlled. The regime supporters even accused the hashtag movement as the one who raised the hashtag #TurunkanJokowi (Overthrow Jokowi) on Twitter. This hashtag has
received a lot of attention and has even become a trending topic since the tweets include the hashtag #GejayanMemanggil (Fahmi, 2019b). Meanwhile, the opposition uses a hoax poster entitled Gerakann Nasional Kedaulatan Rakyat (the People’s Sovereignty National Movement) with a photo of Habib Rizieq Shihab and the logo of Front Pembela Islam (shortened as FPI, Islamic Defenders Front). The contents show that there was an attempt to link FPI as an opposition to the regime with the student demonstrations. In fact, it was finally discovered that this poster was a hoax (Fahmi, 2019b). However, this poster has been spread via WhatsApp. Indeed, this kind of information will lead to the perception that the student-initiated action is being ridiculed by the government’s opposition. To respond to the accusations addressed to the hashtag movement, another narrative, Menolak Penokohan
“Rejecting Characterizations” was spread through six posters, one of which is in Figure 4.
Figure 4 Poster Refuses To Be Ridden
Source O cial Twi er Account of gejayan- memanggil, 2019.
ARB then experiences the context of polarization caused by the 2019 election. The
activists have known from the beginning that their movement inevitably faced two political parties that were fighting each other on social media through their buzzers. Therefore, ARB sends claims, which are not related to any electoral political interests, to make the proposed substances delivered and undistorted into a political support narrative.
Communication technology allows the implementation of a leaderless movement principle (Bellei & Cabalin, 2013; Cammaerts, 2015; Lin, 2017). Social media are also integrated to build the framing of ARB as a leaderless movement.
Characterizations are considered to have the potential to give rise to claims to the movement and hinder broad and equal participation. After the action, several student figures taking part in the demonstration in Jakarta are invited to a television talk show. ARB decides to state a precautionary action, so it should not be associated with any figures. The process of building the anti-characterization principle is also demonstrated by the communication of movements, which are not centralized and rely on one person. In the realm of social media, the circulation of official information from the movement is only done through public relations and the movement’s official account on Instagram.
ARB stipulates that the contact person is not run by one person but three people.
In the next process, the three people do their functions anonymously by using the same name, namely Nailendra, Kontra Tirano and Revo Lusi. This practice may prevent characterizations. Contrarily, it is
still able to anticipate disinformation and misinformation on social media.
This paper has outlined how the hashtag #GejayanMemanggil movement produced a set of core framing tasks, pertaining to two main orders of discourse with a long historical legacy. They are the marginalization of civil society from the decision-making process with an emphasis on injustice and authoritarian regime and the unfair distribution of material, which focused on some groups of elites only. The hashtag movement provokes the problems that need fixing as well as provides a set of solutions to the problems themselves. This study aligns with Gerbaudo & Treré (2015) who assert that a collective identity still constitutes a pivotal question for activist- scholar alike.
The finding of this paper does not only explain how the framing is designated by the movement but also how it responds to any accusations addressed to the activists in the context of the political polarization situation after the presidential election. Further research on comparing perspectives of the discourses and framing of #GejayanMemanggil may enrich the issue. Nevertheless, this paper is expected to be a reference for other relevant researchers in the conceptual framework of communication study. In addition, the paper is also expected to be significant for those who study social movement studies on the internet. Last, principally, this paper may serve as an inspiration for individuals or groups who want to fight for civil society
rights through digital media.
This research is funded by Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan (LPDP, Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education). I would like to thank the LPDP for scholarship support during my study.
Aliansi Rakyat Bergerak. (2019). Kajian Aliansi Rakyat Bergerak: Mengajukan Klaim atas Narasi Demokrasi Alternatif di Ruang Publik.
Amnesty international. (2018). Pembunuhan D a n I m p u n i t a s D i P a p u a : Sudah, Kasi Tinggal Dia Mati. 15–21. https://www.amnesty.
or g /do w nlo ad/ Do c umen ts/
ASA2181982018INDONESIAN.
Aouragh, M., & Alexander, A. (2011).
The Egyptian experience: Sense and nonsense of the internet revolution. International Journal of Communication, 5.
Belarminus, R. (2019). KALEIDOSKOP 2019: K eru su ha n di P apu a , Buntut Kasus Rasial dan Hoaks.
https://regional.kompas.com/
r e a d / 2 0 1 9 / 1 2 / 3 0 / 0 7 0 0 0 0 3 1 / kaleidoskop-2019--kerusuhan-di- papua-buntut-kasus-rasial-dan- hoaks?page=all
Bellei, C., & Cabalin, C. (2013). Chilean Student Movements: Sustained Struggle to Transform a Market- oriented Educational System.
Current Issues in Comparative
Education, 15(2), 108–123.
Cammaerts, Bart &Carpentier, N. (2007).
Reclaiming the Media Communication Rights Edited by Bart Cammaerts (Issue May 2018).
C a m m a e r t s , B . ( 2 0 1 5 ) . S o c i a l M e d i a a n d A c t i v i s m . T h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l E n c y c l o p e d i a o f D i g i t a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n and Society, 1–8. https://doi.
org/10.1002/9781118767771.
wbiedcs083
Cammaerts, B. (2018). The circulation of anti-austerity protest. In The Circulation of Anti-Austerity Protest.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319- 70123-3
Castells, M. (2010). The Rise of the Network Society. Wiley Blackwell. https://
doi.org/10.1002/9781444319514 Chen, J., & Dobratz, B. (2015). Framing
identity in social movements: The identity and the Chinese government interpretation of the Tibet separatists.
10009298, 111. http://ezproxy.
lib.uts.edu.au/login?url=https://
search.proquest.com/docview /1762525001?accountid=17095
%0Ahttp://find.lib.uts.edu.au/
search.do?N=0&Ntk=Journal_Se arch&Ntx=matchallpartial&Ntt=
%0Ahttp://sfx.lib.uts.edu.au/sfx_
local?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val Eltantawy, N., & Wiest, J. B. (2011).
Social media in the Egyptian revolution: reconsidering resource mobilization theory. International Journal of Communication, 5, 1207- 1224.
Eriyanto, E. (2012). Analisis Framing Konstruksi, Ideologi, dan Politik Media (cetakan IV). LKiS.
Fahmi, I. (2019a). #GejayanMemanggil.
Retrieved April 4, 2021, from https://pers.droneemprit.id/
gejayanmemanggil
Fahmi, I. (2019b). Dialektika Narasi dalam Aksi #MahasiswaBergerak. Retrieved August 8, 2021, from https://www.
slideshare.net/IsmailFahmi3/
dialektika-narasi-dalam-aksi- mahasiswabergerak
Firdausi, F. A. (2019). Sejarah Demonstrasi Mahasiswa yang Mengancam Menumbangkan Rezim. https://
tirto.id/sejarah-demonstrasi- mahasiswa-yang-mengancam- menumbangkan-rezim-eiBo Fuadi, A. (2020). Social media power
for protest in Indonesia: The Yogyakarta’s #gejayanmemanggil c a s e s t u d y. J u r n a l S t u d i Komunikasi (Indonesian Journal of Communications Studies), 4(3), 541. https://doi.org/10.25139/jsk.
v4i3.2438
Gendis. (2021, 20 June.). Personal Interview.
Gerbaudo, P., & Treré, E. (2015). In search of the ‘we’ of social media activism: introduction to the special issue on social media and protest identities. Information Communication and Society, 18(8), 865–871. https://doi.org/10.1080/1 369118X.2015.1043319
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of the Experience.
Harper Colophon.
John W. Creswell, J. D. C. (2018). Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (Fifth Edit). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Jurriëns, E., & Tapsell, R. (2017). Challenges and opportunities of the digital
‘revolution’ in Indonesia. Digital Indonesia: Connectivity and Divergence, 2020, 275–288. https://
doi.org/10.1355/9789814786003- 007
Kompas TV. (2019). Kekuatan Mantra
#GejayanMemanggil | Aiman.
https :/ /w ww.yo utu b e.c o m/
watch?v=VDvrSP96gYQ&t=2s Lim, M. (2018). Roots, Routes, and Routers:
Communications and Media of Contemporary Social Movements.
Journalism and Communication Monographs, 20(2), 92–136. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1522637918770419 Lin, Z. (2017). Contextualized Transmedia
Mobilization: Media Practices and Mobilizing Structures in t h e U m b r e l l a M o v e m e n t . In In t er n at i on a l J o u rn a l o f Communication (Vol. 11). http://
ijoc.org.
Liu, Y. (2015). Tweeting, re-tweeting, and commenting: microblogging and social movements in China. Asian Journal of Communication, 25(6), 567–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/0 1292986.2015.1013971
Nadia Noer. (2021, 05 June). Personal Interview.
Pink, S. (2017). Digital Ethnography:
Principles & Practice. In Corvinus Journal of Sociology & Social Policy
(Vol. 8, Issue 1).
Prentoulis, M., & Thomassen, L. (2013).
Political theory in the square:
Protest, representation and subjectification. Contemporary Political Theory, 12(3), 166–184.
https://doi.org/10.1057/cpt.2012.26 Robert V. Kozinets. (2010). Netnography:
Doing Ethnographic Research Online.
SAGE Publishing.
Savirani, A. (2019). Catatan Aktivis 98 Untuk Demo Mahasiswa 2019, Lanjutkan Perjuangan. https://
theconversation.com/catatan- a k t i v i s - 9 8 - u n t u k - d e m o - mahasiswa-2019-lanjutkan- perjuangan-124130
Snow, D. A., Vliegenthart, R., & Ketelaars, P. (2018). The Framing Perspective on Social Movements. The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, 392–410. https://doi.
org/10.1002/9781119168577.ch22 Sukmana, O. (2016). Konsep Dan Teori
Gerakan Sosial.
Triwibowo, W. (2019). “Cebong” versus
“Kampret”: Polarisasi politik p a s c a p i l p r e s 2 0 1 9 s e m a k i n tajam. https://theconversation.
com/cebong-versus-kampret- polarisasi-politik-pascapilpres- 2019-semakin-tajam-115477
Winters, J. A. (2013). Oligarchy and Democracy in Indonesia. Southeast Asia Program Publication at Cornell University, 11–33. doi:10.5728/
indonesia.96.0099
Wisanggeni, S. P. (2019). Jangan Tergesa- gesa meski Target Akhir 2019.
https://www.kompas.id/baca/
utama/2019/05/09/jangan-tergesa- gesa-meski-target-akhir-2019
